Problems in Interpreting Genesis Part 2

Like any discipline, interpretation methods (hermeneutics) can suffer from being used to solve problems which lie outside its sphere.

This article was originally prepared by Noel for the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students. It was published in the Theolog Review Vol. 8, 1972 and is reprinted by permission. This series of articles has been specially modified for use in Ex Nihilo.

“One of the fundamental beliefs of evangelical Christianity is
that “the Bible is its own interpreter.” This belief comes under attack
when Christians try to interpret Genesis 1-11
so as to fit into evolutionary biology and uniformitarian geology.
Various justifications are given for this, e.g. “the Bible is teaching
religion and not science,” or “we must interpret Genesis by general
revelation (=science),” or “the Bible was written in terms of the
naive unscientific beliefs of its day.” When each of these arguments is
examined it is found that it involves interpreting the Bible according to ideas
drawn from outside the Bible. Thus the Bible is no longer its own interpreter.”

Is there any explicit teaching within the Bible itself that suggests
its details are not to be pressed in matters of the physical creation? I know
of no such teaching. When reference is made to the original creation, the creation
narrative is treated as fact without any reservation. Consider Peter’s argument
in 2 Peter 3:5-7,
“But they deliberately forgot that long ago by God’s
word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and with water.
By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same
word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the
day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” Note that he does not
shrink from reliance upon some of the details of the Genesis narrative. Other
examples of Biblical references back to Genesis (e.g. Exodus 20:11;
Matthew 19:4; Romans 5:12-19;
1 Tim. 2:13-14), to be considered in more detail below, show a similar reference
to specific details such as creation in seven days (Exodus 20:11) and creation
of woman from the man (1 Timothy 2:13-14).

This should in itself be enough to dismiss the frequent statement that we may
not press the details of the account. Yet, most people would want to interpret
scripture upon a basis of Kantian philosophy. But this philosophy itself is
not sanctioned by Scripture. No clear distinction is ever made in the Bible
between statements concerning the physical creation and theological statements.
One influences and determines the other. Note that in the Biblical references
given above, the form which the original creation took is made the basis of
theological and/or ethical teaching. The separation between physical creation
and theology is one that has to be imposed upon the text by us. It is not naturally
there in the Bible.

The Literary character of Genesis 1

One cannot simply define Genesis 1 as poetry by using a standard of poetry drawn from outside the Scripture.

It seems a more serious attempt at exegesis when
appeal is made to the literary nature of Genesis 1.1
Even here care is needed that an outside
standard be not imposed. One cannot simply define Genesis 1 as poetry by using
a standard of poetry drawn from outside the Scripture, without assuming the
very point at issue. Even if Genesis 1 were poetry, we would still be entitled
to inquire what truth it conveys. Our answer to that question would have to
be framed in terms of the rest of Scripture. If we take the passages referred
to above we obtain enough to place us in conflict with modern evolutionary approaches.
Thus the claim that Genesis 1 is poetic does not resolve the problem.

Furthermore, by what criteria do we call Genesis 1 poetic? The
parallelism of days 1-3 to 4-6 is often cited. This however, is merely parallelism
that makes up Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry consists of a series of couplets
or triplets exhibiting complementary, climatic or antithetic parallelism e.g.
in Psalm 5:1, “Give ear to my
words, O Lord;”: is complemented
and paralleled by “Consider my meditation.” This
is clearly different from the fact that on days 1-3 God creates the environment
and on days 4-6 the creatures who are to live and rule in the respective environments.
One is a parallel of ideas in successive stichoi, the other a parallel of ideas
which may be several verses apart.

Nevertheless it may be argued that the very fact that Genesis 1 exhibits such
a structure proves that it is not to be taken literally. Surely, to state this
argument is to refute it. Short of some sort of metaphysical presupposition
that regards history as totally random and all order in historiography as being
a result of arbitrary human imposition, I cannot see how one would ever prove
such a proposition. The attempt to make a case by analogy from the book of Revelation
is quite beside the point. If we took elements of Revelation as symbolical without
explicit Biblical warrant then we would be guilty of imposing an outside standard
upon the Scripture. Revelation itself tells us that we are meant to see symbolism
in its pictures: “the great city, which is allegorically
called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified” (Genesis 11:8);
“And a great portent appeared in heaven” (Genesis 12:1);
“and on her forehead was written a name of mystery,
‘Babylon the Great . . . I will tell you the mystery of the woman . . . This calls
for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains . . . and there are
also seven kings . . . The waters that you saw, where the harlot is seated, are
peoples and multitudes . . . And the woman that you saw is the great city which
has dominion over the kings of the earth” (Genesis 17:5-18).
It is the lack of a similar interpretation of the “symbolism” of Genesis which
so sharply distinguishes Genesis and Revelation.

Structured history

Even though there is no logical reason why the presence of a structure should
prove that a passage is not to be taken literally, this idea seams to have great
emotive appeal. The whole question of structured history needs to be examined
more closely. The title of this paper limits discussion to Genesis 1-11. This
is because among evangelicals anyway there is a willingness to accept the historicity
of the patriarchal narratives. However, the patriarchal narratives are structured
history in the same way as the earlier chapters of Genesis. They fit within
a framework created by the heading “These are the generations
of . . .” (Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12, 19 etc.).
There are clear instances of parallel structure. Thus the experiences of Isaac
parallel those of Abraham. Both have barren wives (Genesis 15:2; 16:1; 25:21).
Both lie concerning their wives (Genesis 20:2; 26:7). Both
face famine in the promised land (Genesis 12:10; 26:1). Both
make a covenant with the Philistines (Genesis 21:22-34; 26:26-33).
If parallelism of structure proves that a passage is not historical then the
patriarchal narratives are not historical. This of course is the conclusion
of many liberal exegetes, but evangelicals once more maintain an inconsistency,
being willing to apply a higher-critical principle in one area of Scripture
but not in another.

If one looks carefully at these structured histories,
one sees that the structure is theological. Abraham and Isaac both face barrenness
and famine because they both experience the trial of faith in being forced to
believe the promise of God contrary to the physical situation (Romans 4:17-18;
Hebrews 11:8-12).2 The structure that underlies the
parallelism of Genesis 1 is that of covenant vassal and suzerain. On days l-3
the environment or vassal was created and on days 4-6 the appropriate creature
or suzerain to live and rule in that environment. This notion of covenant head
and vassal underlies also the story of the Fall in that on the fall of the suzerain
the vassal is placed in rebellion against its Lord (Genesis 3:17-19).
Further the idea of covenant structures the whole of history into old and new
covenant each under their respective heads (Romans 5:12-21;
1 Corinthians 15:45-49). For the historian who proceeds on antitheistic assumptions
such a theological history must be rejected. He must assign all such histories
to the category of theological subjectivism. A theologically structured history
presupposes a God who actively shapes history so that it conforms to his plan.
A liberal exegete who denies the existence of such a God must dismiss as true
history all Biblical accounts which see theological patterns in history. The
evangelical has no basis for such an a priori dismissal of structured history.
The fact that Genesis 1 displays a structure in no way prejudices its claim
to historicity.

Scriptural interpretations of the Genesis account

So far the views discussed have consisted of statements about Scripture which
were not themselves based on Scripture. An a priori statement about the Bible
cannot claim Biblical authority. Discussion of this area has been obscured by
the number of these statements and there is a need to return to interpreting
Scripture by Scripture and not by hypothesis. There are a number of passages
which reflect upon the original creation. Some have been referred to in other
connections above.

An a priori statement about the Bible cannot claim Biblical authority.

Exodus 20:8-11 is significant in that it gives us a clear answer to the debated
question about whether the “days” of Genesis are to be taken literally. The
commandment loses completely its cogency if they are not taken literally.3

This passage is also important in giving a proper direction of our thought.
It is often said that the creation is described in seven days because this is
the pattern of labor to which the Hebrews were accustomed. The text however
says the very reverse. The Hebrews are to become accustomed to a seven-day week
because that is the pattern that has been set by God. The point is an important
one as it is crucial to the distinction between true and false religion. The
oft-repeated claim that human thought and custom has created the categories
through which, of necessity, all God’s activity must be viewed is a denial of
the spirit of Biblical religion. It gives to man the priority which rightly
belongs to God.

Psalm (104) deserves more consideration in this question than it usually receives.
The Psalm follows in a general fashion the order of the creation days. The one
point that is of particular interest is that the psalmist has integrated the
account of Genesis 1 with that of the creation of springs in Genesis 2:4-6.
The reference to springs falls where one would logically expect it
between the account of the creation of dry land (Psalm 104:6-9)
and that of vegetation (Psalm 104:14-17). The problems of relating the accounts of
Genesis 1 and 2 is outside the scope of this paper but any attempt must begin with Psalm 104.
Unfortunately some evangelicals have accepted too readily the assertion of the
documentary hypothesis that they are independent accounts of creation. The psalmist
knew better. A number of passages which refer to the original creation of man
and woman and their relationship may be considered together (Matthew 19:4;
1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).
Note that the account is taken literally and made the
basis of teaching on the relation of man and woman. Even if in only this point
we take issue with evolutionary theory we find ourselves in complete antithesis
to naturalistic evolution. If on the authority of Scripture we hold to the Biblical
account of the creation of man and woman then we can give up all hope of a harmony
between the Bible and “science.” The proper subject of this paper is the interpretation
problem and these passages are adduced to show that the rest of Scripture sees
the early chapters of Genesis as literal history. It may be objected as a last
resort that only those details of the account mentioned as literal by the rest
of Scripture may be taken literally. Even if this point be granted there is
still enough contained in just these few verses to reopen the battle with evolutionary
theory. However the argument that only those passages in Genesis 1-11
referred to elsewhere as literal accounts are to be taken as such may
be summarily dismissed. The early chapters of the Bible are clearly a unity
and whatever interpretation method is valid for part is valid for all. This
fact has been realized by those who have sought by various arguments to find
evidence of “poetry” in one part and to extend it to all. Yet all these attempts
in so far as they were not attempts to see how the rest of Scripture treated
the chapters in question must be condemned as methodologically faulty. Scripture
is its own interpreter.

Against this one might argue that even though the NT treats Genesis
1-11 as literal, this should not be taken as proving that it is a literal description.
One may argue that the NT writers were accommodating themselves to the beliefs
of the time or that these passages are referred to only as illustrations and
that their literalness is not implied by the NT usage. The first alternative
must be rejected as involving a denigration of Christ and his apostles. The
accommodation argument when used as a way of avoiding the implications of Christ’s
use of the OT for the doctrine of Scripture has been rightly rejected by evangelicals.4
It is inconsistent to attempt to revive it to avoid the implications of NT teaching
on another subject. Furthermore the fundamental objection against a rule of
exegesis drawn from outside Scripture applies here also. If the accommodation
idea is to be allowed in the discussion then it must first be demonstrated that
it is itself taught by Scripture.

The second alternative will not bear examination. Clearly in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 the argument of Paul would collapse if the details
of the account to which he refers did not happen as recorded. It is foolish
to suggest that his point would still be valid even if woman was not created
after and from the man and even if Eve was not beguiled into sin. Similarly
Peter’s point is without cogency if the world was not destroyed by the Flood
(2 Peter 3:5-6).

Conclusion

The thrust of this paper has been to direct discussion away from theoretical
pre-exegetical arguments over the interpretation of Genesis and to concentrate
on the way the rest of Scripture interprets it. We meet simple literalism in
the scriptural exegesis of Genesis. Certainly not every detail of the chapters
in question is referred to elsewhere but when they are literalism prevails.

If this be the case why has so much discussion been concentrated on arguments
which are not only inconclusive but also diminish the right of Scripture to
be its own interpreter? I suspect that the real debate is not interpretation
at all. If it were, then it would have been decided long ago by a comparison
of Scripture with Scripture. The real problem is that we as Christians have
in a double sense lost our historical perspective. We have forgotten that the
church has always been under pressure to allegorize Genesis so that it may conform
with Plotinus or Aristotle or some other human philosophy. We have treated the
problem as though it were a modern one, as though we alone have had to face
the onerous task of holding to a view of cosmic and human origins which is out
of sympathy with the philosophical premises of our culture.

The second sense in which we have lost our historical perspective is that we have forgotten that until our Lord returns we face strife and conflict in this world. We have sought to avoid that conflict in the intellectual realms. We have accepted the claim of humanistic thought that its scholarship is religiously neutral when the Bible teaches us that no man is religiously neutral. Man either seeks to suppress the truth in unrighteousness or to live all his life to the glory of God. In that total warfare scholarship is no mutually declared truce.

Footnotes interpretation

Footnotes

The attempt to explain these parallel incidents in terms
of the documentary hypothesis is shown to be ridiculous if an attempt is made
to assign each parallel to a different source in every case in which a parallel
exists. The cases of both Abraham and Isaac lying concerning their wives is
often used as proof of the documentary hypothesis. However, inconsistently,
the theory attributes both barrenness accounts and both famine accounts to
J. The inconsistencies become more evident if the parallels in the life of
Jacob are also considered. Basically the documentary hypothesis is able to
make a plausible case by ignoring most of the incidents of “duplicate” narratives.
When all are taken into account then it is clear that the “duplicate” narratives
and the other “criteria” for dividing documents come into conflict.

John Murray (in Principles of Conduct [London:
IVP; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], p. 30) claims that Genesis 2:2
refers to “the seventh day in the sphere of God’s action, not the
seventh day in our weekly cycle” (emphasis his). Consideration of this
question would involve a lengthy treatment of the meaning of God’s seventh-day
rest. The frequent affirmation that the seventh day of Genesis 2:2 is still
continuing needs to be proven. Murray unfortunately omits such proof. Briefly
it may be argued that the text gives no indication of such a sphere distinction.
The text is not concerned with God as He is in Himself but with God’s activity
in a temporally conditioned creation. Even the seventh day refers not to God
in Himself but to God in relation to His creation. At this point I can agree
with Murray (ibid., p.31): God’s rest is the rest of delight in the work of
creation accomplished. “And God saw all that which
He made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).
This is expressly alluded to in Exodus 31:17
in connection with God’s Sabbath rest, “On
the seventh day He rested and refreshed Himself” and means surely the
rest of satisfaction and delight in the completed work of creation.

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.